The Positive Influence of Collaborative

Testing in the L2 Classroom

Christopher Connelly

The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of collaborative testing as a
component of a first-year English reading course at a Japanese university could result in
higher scores in a final post-course test compared with a pre-course test. Results of the
post-test indicated that the use of collaborative testing as a regular part of the course
helped students achieve higher individual scores compared to scores from previous classes
that did not include the collaborative testing element. It was observed that the students’
final scores improved by an average of 7 points in the classes which did not use
collaborative testing compared with an average of 17 points in the classes which did. The
results of the study suggest four advantages of cooperative exams: the opportunity for
discussion to increase understanding, the opportunity to increase the overall grade on the
exam, greater collaboration and teamwork, and increased individual responsibility.
However, the results also highlighted two disadvantages: the reliance of some students on
the efforts of others, and the conflict that can arise from peer pressure in the collaborative
portion of the exam. Results of a questionnaire revealed that the students were highly
motivated by the collaborative test aspect of the course and felt that it should be extended
to other courses.

Assessments such as in-class tests and formal exams are most effective when used as a
tool to help instructors better understand the connection between what they teach and how
much the students actually learn（Tanner & Allen, 2004）, and regular assessment has been
shown to improve retention of course material due to repeated recall, otherwise known as
the “testing effect”（Roediger & Karpicke, 2006）. The testing effect causes course material to
become part of the student’s knowledge structure through retrieval, in contrast to regular
studying tactics which instead utilize encoding（Eastridge & Benson, 2020）, and the effect holds
true whether test questions are repeated in a series of tests or whether each individual test
contains different questions（Batsell, Perry, & Hostetter, 2017）. Exams, such as IELTS and
TOEIC, which include multiple-choice questions, have also been shown to activate this

1
testing effect, resulting in improved performance over a series of tests（Marsh & Roediger,
. However, despite the many benefits of testing, giving students a simple numerical
2007）

grade may have little or no impact on learning and retention（Epstein, Epstein, & Brovsic, 2001）.
As an alternative, verbal feedback and discussion as to why answers are correct or incorrect
are highly beneficial and can result in improved grades and long-term retention of course
material（Rao, Collins, & DiCarlo, 2002）.
Collaborative testing is a promising alternative to regular grade-orientated testing as it
utilizes group discussion and exam question analysis as part of a collaborative learning
experience to help students better understand what they are learning and to highlight any
potential errors in comprehension that may be bringing their test scores down（Hodges, 2004;
. It combines collaborative-style learning
Michaelson, Knight, & Fink, 2004; Millis & Cottell, 1997）

with an assessment element offering students the freedom to work together in small groups
to explain their reasoning, share knowledge, and view the course material from different
perspectives. Not only does this lead to greater understanding and higher grades, but the
students also benefit from practise in interpersonal skills, which is fundamental in the L2
classroom, particularly in courses preparing students for studying abroad.
Incorporating collaborative testing into a course can be an effective means to enhance the
learning potential of the students as it has been shown to improve performance（Riley,
McCormack, Ward, Renteria, & Steele, 2021）boost motivation（Patiwael, Douma, Bezakova, Kusurkar,

, decrease test anxiety（Bovee, 2016; Hanshaw, 2012; Siegel, Roberts, Freyermuth,

& Daelmans, 2021）

, and cultivate critical thinking skills（Eastridge & Benson, 2019）. It is also

Witzig, & Izci, 2015）

viewed positively by students, and various studies highlight student satisfaction as one of the
major positive outcomes of collaborative tests （Meseke, Nafziger, & Meseke, 2010; Nafziger,
. Other reported benefits include improved collaboration
Meseke, & Meseke, 2011; Sandahl, 2010）

and team work among classmates, enhanced learning and test taking skills, greater
motivation to actually study the material, improvements in test taking performance, and
greater confidence（Cantwell, Sousou, Jadotte, & Pierce, 2013）.
It has been suggested that the use of collaborative testing can better enable students to
prepare for a final test compared to individual testing alone （Dahlström, 2012; Smith &
. Traditionally, it has been the norm to assess student learning through
MacGregor, 1992）

independent testing; that is, students complete a test individually with no help from
classmates or outside resources. Gilley and Clarkston （2014）propose that many of the
common drawbacks of individual testing can be reduced or even eliminated through the use
of collaborative testing. Using the traditional test style, students often receive little or no
feedback, and when feedback is given, this generally happens days or even weeks after the

2
 The Positive Influence of Collaborative Testing in the L2 Classroom

test date. However, through collaborative testing, students can receive immediate feedback
from their group members and classmates as they complete the test.

Previous studies have revealed that collaborative testing can greatly improve the overall
learning process and produce beneficial effects such as greater social interdependence,
increased motivation and involvement during class, and greater engagement with the course
content on the whole（Dahlström, 2012; Zipp, 2007）. Several studies examining the effects of
collaborative testing（Eaton, 2009; Meseke, Nafziger, & Meseke, 2008; Shen, Hiltz, & Bieber, 2008;
Stearns, 1996; Zipp, 2007）highlight the positive ways in which the regular use of collaborative

tests throughout a course can better prepare students for a final exam. In almost all of the
studies, the use of collaborative learning and testing produced a significant positive effect on
test performance. Similar to this study, the studies mentioned focused on the effects of
collaborative testing as a regular part of a course in preparation for a final exam taken
individually.
Although the most commonly reported benefit of collaborative testing is improved test
scores, many studies on such testing make use of the group’s exam scores rather than a pre/
post-test of individual performance to indicate improvement. However, this method fails to
measure the impact of collaborative testing on individual student performance. This is why
this study employed an individual pre- and post-test as well as collaborative testing
throughout the course to better prepare the students for the final test. The results of this
study are a reflection of each student’s individual pre- and post-test scores, rather than group
test scores.

The study was conducted during a mandatory first-year English reading course at a
Japanese university. The reading course aims to prepare students for an individual reading
test in the final lesson of the term by familiarizing them with a variety of reading skills and
strategies to enhance their overall reading comprehension.

The student population （n = 108） was comprised of first-year students from five

3
specializations; Engineering, Computer Science, Law & Letters, Agriculture, and
Collaborative Regional Innovation. The participants were all 18 to 20-year old Japanese
students. Their English proficiency levels varied from a high score of 298 to a low score of
153 on the Global Test of English Communication（GTEC）, with an average score of 222. The
course spanned eight weeks, with two 90-minute lessons per week.

Each lesson was designed with a focus on pair and group work to increase collaboration
throughout the course. Review tests and short quizzes, taken individually by each student,
were used in the second lesson of each week to assess retention of the course content and to
offer general feedback. However, the three main tests（the midterm in lesson eight and the final
reviews in lessons thirteen and fourteen）were collaborative. The main tests consisted of forty

multiple-choice questions and the students had fifty minutes to complete each test. The tests
were based on the type of questions the students would encounter in the final individual test
and covered all of the skills and strategies taught throughout the course. During the
collaborative tests, the students were encourage to exchange ideas, explain their choices to
the rest of the group, and request clarification from each other. To ensure the effectiveness
of collaborative groups, Cohen（1994）suggested the use of small groups to offer each student
the opportunity to participate. Similarly, a study conducted by Oakley, Felder, Brent, and
Elhajj（2004）on the optimal size of a group for collaborative learning suggested that group
sizes of three to five are recommended. For the collaborative midterm and final review tests
of this study, the students were split into groups of four.

Over the duration of the course, the students were taught a variety of skills including
previewing and predicting, skimming and scanning, finding the main idea and supporting
ideas, inferring meaning, cause and effect, problems and solutions, and summarizing, all of
which were developed through the use of a variety of reading passages from a textbook
complemented by supplementary reading materials.

After the final test, students were asked to complete a questionnaire（Figure 1）to evaluate
the use of the collaborative testing format used in the course. Students were asked to rate
their level of agreement with 10 statements regarding the collaborative testing process using
a Likert scale.

4
 The Positive Influence of Collaborative Testing in the L2 Classroom

Figure 1 Questionnaire

To determine whether the collaborative testing element of the course had any impact on
student performance, average pre- and post-test scores for the students who took the
collaborative-style course were compared with students from previous years in classes
without a collaborative testing element（Figure 2）.
As can be seen, there was a much higher increase in scores between the pre- and post-
tests for the collaborative students as well as higher overall post-test scores: an average
increase of around 17 points for the collaborative group in 2017 compared with the non-
collaborative group in 2016, whose average increase was around 7 points. For students in the
collaborative-style course, in the final test, the average scores for the lower performing
students were significantly higher than on the pre-test, and the percentage gain was much
higher than that of the students who initially scored best. The results for the high-level
students, however, were particularly surprising. As test scores reflect ability, it was
expected that test scores for all participants would be higher after the course; however, six

5
 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2016 pre 2016 post 2017 pre 2017 post

Figure 2 Average pre- and post-test scores for students in 2016（no collaborative testing element）
and students in 2017（collaborative testing element）

of the students who performed best on the pre-test underperformed in the final test（Table
.
1）

Table 1 Average scores for 2017 collaborative group compared with 2016 non-collaborative group

Average scores（2017） Average Scores（2016）

No. of Ave. Ave. No. of Ave. Ave.

Students Pre Post Students Pre Post

Scores Increased 102 63.1 79.8 69 70.1 77.4

Scores Decreased 6 84.0 81.0 41 80.2 73.8

The more advanced students tended to be the most vocal during the discussion sessions
and tended to lead the rest of the students in each of the collaborative tests, so it was
assumed that possible overconfidence may have been a factor in the lower results seen in
the final test.
The questionnaire（Figure 1）used to assess student opinion revealed that the students
regarded the collaborative style of learning positively. The questionnaire measured student
reaction to the purpose and length of the collaborative process, and the active involvement of
group members during the discussion, together with the students’ attitudes and perceptions
on the overall process. Students reported a high level of involvement from all members
within their groups（questions 5 and 8）, as well as an enhanced understanding of concepts,
which led to increased confidence in their answers, as a result of peer discussions（questions 3
. Overall, students reported that they enjoyed the novelty of the testing methodology
and 7）

6
 The Positive Influence of Collaborative Testing in the L2 Classroom

（question 10）and would be interested in taking part in future courses with similar testing

pedagogies. Mean scores for the questionnaire can be seen in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Mean scores for each question on the questionnaire

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10

3.93 4.04 3.85 3.81 4.11 4.11 3.52 4.19 4.11 3.93

Comments on student surveys, results of course evaluations, and higher exam scores
demonstrate that the understanding and effective use of the various reading skills learned
under the collaborative conditions improved to a higher level than in the classes that didn’t
include the collaborative element.

The final scores for the majority of the students after the use of collaborative group
testing improved, dramatically in many cases, and particularly for the initially low
performing students. This study has established that individual student knowledge increases
significantly when combining collaborative testing with individual testing. Most of the
improvements seen between the individual pre-tests, the repeated group tests, and the
individual post-test, indicate greater knowledge retention by students, as reflected in their
final test scores. This suggests that a deeper level of learning was achieved, rather than the
simple rote memorization which accounts for the majority of learning with traditional testing
methods. It can be assumed that the collaborative learning strategies employed throughout
the course helped students retain what they learned.
Similarly to observations by Sandahl （2010）, post-course questionnaires showed that
student opinion was overwhelmingly positive, and the students themselves reported that
their increased learning was a direct result of the collaborative element. Despite the lack of
empirical evidence to support the increased retention, collaborative testing may be an
approach worth implementing. Increased test scores aside, the students were motivated by
increased exposure to positive interactions and collaboration with their peers.
The collaborative testing approach provided students with immediate feedback which is
an important component for understanding. It also aided in building more positive
relationships among students and the teacher, promoted more positive psychological well-
being, and helped towards creating a more constructive classroom environment, all of which
contributed towards fostering greater critical thinking.
Overall, the positive outcomes included a greater opportunity for discussion to facilitate

7
and deepen understanding, increased overall grades, the opportunity for greater collaboration
and teamwork, and a greater degree of personal responsibility. Although the positives
outweighed the negatives, the overdependence of some students on others in their groups,
and pressure from some group members to choose specific answers in the collaborate exams
resulting in disagreement were of concern.
Exams, when administered using a collaborative approach, can be used as a teaching and
learning tool transforming traditional evaluation into a formative type of assessment, which
is assessment for learning, not of learning.（Giuliodori, Lujan, & DiCarlo, 2008）. Furthermore,
feedback on traditional exams tends to be delayed and oftentimes lacking in substance,
which can leave students unclear about the correct answer and whether their thought
process behind the answer was adequate. Allowing students to work together offers the
opportunity to discuss the material, which facilitates understanding and adds a layer of
support allowing them to extend beyond their knowledge base to accomplish shared goals
.
（Torttier, 1999）

Measuring the performance of a group and comparing this to each individual’s

performance is not straight-forward, a factor which has been highlighted in other studies
comparing individual scores with group scores to measure learning（Dahlström, Danielsson,
. These
Emilsson, & Andersson 2011; Giuliodori, Lujan, & DiCarlo, 2008; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997）

studies show that group performance can fail to reach the full potential of each individual
which may result in group scores being lower than the sum of the members’ individual
scores. Additionally, comparing individual scores with group scores to assess learning relies
upon the assumption that everyone in the group fully agreed upon and understood each
answer given collaboratively, which may not be the case. However, this study combined
group and individual testing, which is one way to negate this shortcoming.
Another possible issue is that there was no evidence, other than individual monitoring
conducted by the teacher, of the specifics of the collaboration done by the students, i.e. no
recordings of what was said and by whom, or to what degree different topics and questions
were discussed, which is something that could productively be addressed in future studies.
Nevertheless, the goal of this study was to assess the amount of learning achieved through
collaboration and was not an examination of the various underlying mechanisms and
dynamics of group collaboration.
Further limitations include the fact that it would be unfair to include a control group of

8
 The Positive Influence of Collaborative Testing in the L2 Classroom

students in the same class, or from other classes doing the same course, as this would
disadvantage those students. However, this was the reasoning behind utilizing a comparison
of students, all of whom benefitted from the collaborative element, with that of students from
previous years, none of whom has participated in collaborative-style lessons, as used in this
study.
Previous studies（Stearns, 1996; Zipp, 2007）have also indicated that collaborative learning
benefits can, a lot of the time, be attributed to teacher feedback; however, in this study
similar lesson feedback was given to the classes that didn’t experience the collaborative
element as well as those which did, seeming to indicate that the collaboration did have a
measurable positive effect.
Despite possible limitations, all of the studies mentioned suggested that collaborative
learning and testing taken regularly during a course, combined with teacher feedback, has
shown to have a positive effect on learning.

Collaborative testing is a powerful learning tool, which offers a variety of benefits to

complement traditional teaching and testing styles. Introducing a collaborative element to a
course can create a highly productive learning environment and has been shown to improve
performance, boost motivation, reduce test anxiety, and cultivate thinking skills. Additionally,
the testing effect, the benefits of peer discussion, and teacher feedback can further deepen
understanding and enhance overall learning. As collaborative learning and testing requires
minimal investment in time or resources, it can be readily incorporated into existing
curricula with very little disruption.
In conclusion, collaborative testing improved the performance of both high-level and low-
level students; however, the benefits were greater for low performers. The findings of this
paper, combined with those of the other studies mentioned, can be used to guide teachers
interested in using collaborative testing to enhance learning potential and improve student
grades, particularly for low performers.

Batsell, W. R., Perry, J. L., & Hostetter, A. B.（2017）. Ecological validity of the testing effect: The use of
daily quizzes in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 18-23.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677492
Bovee, B.（2016）. The impact of collaborative testing on test anxiety. Chiropractic Journal of Australia,
44, 215-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319888113

9
Cantwell, R., Sousou, J., Jadotte, Y., & Pierce, J.（2013）. Collaborative testing for improving student
learning outcomes and test-taking performance in higher education: A systematic review. Campbell
Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.186
Cohen, E. G.（1994）. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of
educational research, 64
（1）,1-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
Dahlström, Ö.（2012）. Learning during a collaborative final exam. Educational Research and Evaluation,
18（4）,321-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.674689
Dahlström, Ö., Danielsson, H., Emilsson, M., & Andersson, J.（2011）. Does retrieval strategy disruption
cause general and specific collaborative inhibition? Memory, 19
（2）,140-154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.539571
Eastridge, J. A., & Benson, W. L.（2020）. Comparing two models of collaborative testing for teaching
statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 47
（1）,68-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319888113
Eaton, T. T.（2009）. Engaging students and evaluating learning progress using collaborative exams in
introductory courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57
（2）,113-120.
https://doi.org/10.12806/V9/I2/RF6
Epstein, M., Epstein, B., & Brovsic, G.（2001）.Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychol Rep,
88, 889-894. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0048
Gilley, B. H., & Clarkston, B.（2014）. Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class
study of undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43
（3）,83-91.
https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst14_043_03_83
Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E.（2008）. Collaborative group testing benefits high-and low-
performing students. Advances in physiology education, 32
（4）,274-278.
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00101.2007
Hanshaw, L. G.（2012）. Qualitative aspects of group-only testing. College Student Journal, 46, 419-426.
https://doi.org/10.17102/bjrd.rub.10.2.007
Hodges, L. C.（2004）. Group exams in science courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 100,
89-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03341616
Marsh, E. J., Roediger, H. L., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L.（2007）. The memorial consequences of multiple-
choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14
（2）,194-199. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194051
Meseke, C. A., Nafziger, R. E., & Meseke, J. K.（2008）. Student course performance and collaborative
testing: A prospective follow-on study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 31（8）,
611-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.674689
Meseke, C. A., Nafziger, R., & Meseke, J. K.（2010）. Student attitudes, satisfaction, and learning in a
collaborative testing environment. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 24（1）,19-29.
https://doi.org/10.7899%2F1042-5055-24.1.19
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D.（2004）.Team-based learning: A transformative use of small
groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Millis, B. J., & Cottell Jr, P. G.（1997）. Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty. Series on
Higher Education. Oryx Press.
Nafziger, R., Meseke, J. K., & Meseke, C. A.（2011）. Collaborative testing: The effect of group formation
process on overall student performance. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 25
（1）,11-15.
https://doi.org/10.7899%2F1042-5055-25.1.11
Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I.（2004）. Turning student groups into effective teams.
Journal of student centered learning, 2
（1）,9-34. https://doi.org/10.1.1.422.8179.
Patiwael, J. A., Douma, A. H., Bezakova, N., Kusurkar, R. A., & Daelmans, H. E.（2021）. Collaborative

10
 The Positive Influence of Collaborative Testing in the L2 Classroom

testing in physical examination skills training and the autonomous motivation of students: a qualitative
study. BMC Medical Education, 21
（1）,1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02618-7
Rao, S. P., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E.（2002）. Collaborative testing enhances student learning.
Advances in physiology education, 26
（1）,37-41. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00032.2001
Riley, E., McCormack, L., Ward, N., Renteria, F., & Steele, T.（2021）. 2-stage collaborative testing results
in improved academic performance and student satisfaction in a prelicensure nursing course. Nurse
Educator, 46
（4）,261-265. https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000000934
Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D.（2006）. The power of testing memory: Basic research and
implications for educational practice. Perspectives on psychological science, 1
（3）,181-210.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
Sandahl, S. S.（2010）.Collaborative testing as a learning strategy in nursing education. Nursing education
perspectives, 31
（3）,142-147. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nep.0000000000000223
Siegel, M. A., Roberts, T. M., Freyermuth, S. K., Witzig, S. B., & Izci, K.（2015）. Aligning assessment to
instruction: Collaborative group testing in large-enrollment science classes. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 44, 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319888113
Shen, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Bieber, M.（2008）. Learning strategies in online collaborative examinations. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 51
（1）,63-78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.674689
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T.（1992）.What is collaborative learning? In Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto,
V., Smith, B. L. & MacGregor J. T.（Eds.）,Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education.
Pennsylvania State University; USA, National center on postsecondary teaching, learning, and
assessment publishing.
Stearns, S. A.（1996）.Collaborative exams as learning tools. College Teaching, 44
（3）,111-112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1996.9925564
Tanner, K., & Allen, D. （2004）. Approaches to biology teaching and learning: From assays to
assessments on collecting evidence in science teaching. Cell Biology Education, 3（2）,69-74.
https://doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.04-03-0037
Trottier, R. W.（1999）. A peer-assisted learning system（‘PALS’）approach to teaching basic sciences. A
model developed in basic medical pharmacology instruction. Medical Teacher, 21（1）,43-47.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00895-y
Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D.（1997）. Collective memory: collaborative and individual processes in
remembering. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 23
（5）,1160-1175.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1160
Zipp, J. F.（2007）. Learning by exams: The impact of two-stage cooperative tests. Teaching Sociology,
35, 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0703500105

11
12